1 2025:CGHC:20987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 794 of 2025 1. Laxmi Narayan Dubey S/o Mukhi Chand Dubey Aged About 69 Years R/o Mahamaya Ward, Bodri, Ward No. 9, Bodri, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through S H O P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rahul Ramdev @ Butiya S/o Pankaj Namdev Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Chakarbhatha Camp, Bodri, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. This petition under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 16.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.8617/2024. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that after grant of bail, 2 respondent No.2 is torturing the prosecution witnesses and compelling them to change their statements regarding which complaint is also submitted by applicant with concerned police. Respondent No.2 has sent a letter to applicant from jail giving threatening to him regarding which he made complaint in the concerned police station also. After passing of the order by this Court granting bail to respondent No.2, another FIR has been registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would argue that respondent No.2 has never extended any threat to applicant. Applicant never tried to impress or compel witnesses of the prosecution. Subsequent complaint is filed by applicant with ulterior motive only to somehow get cancelled the bail granted to respondent No.2. He submits that the criteria for cancellation of bail is completely different from the criteria for grant of bail. Applicant has not made any specific pleading in his petition seeking cancellation of bail as to which of the conditions imposed on respondent No.2 while granting bail has been violated by him. 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 5. The law relating to cancellation of bail is well settled by various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court where it is held 3 that much more stringent criteria is applied while cancelling a bail as compared to the relatively liberal view exercisable in cases of grant of bail. The reason is obvious. When bail granted to a person is cancelled, his right to liberty is curtailed. Right to liberty is a fundamental right, which ought not be to curtailed unless there are very strong and compelling reasons. In case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC Online 1779, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC." 6. Law of cancellation of bail is recently being reiterated by Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 and relevant part of the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “11.Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the 4 Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed." 7. In case at hand, applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 on the grounds that subsequent to grant of bail, respondent No.2 is compelling the prosecution witnesses to change their statements; causing undue influence and coercion by extending threat to applicant by sending letter from jail regarding which an offence is also registered against him. Thus, in substance, the basis for seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 is registration of FIR against him subsequent to grant of bail. It is not the case of applicant that respondent No.2 has misused the liberty or acted in violation of any of the conditions imposed on him while granting bail. 8. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mubin and others, reported in 2011 Crl. L.J. 3850, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has observed as under; "9. The primary question which is to be considered by us in this case is as to whether the accused 5 applicants had committed any offence, during the pendency of the appeal, on account of lodging of some first information reports. In other words, can it be said that a person has committed an offence when a first information report is lodged against him. In our considered opinion, merely lodging of a first information report, does not amount to commission of an offence and it is only accusation/allegation which can be said to be leveled against the accused person at the stage. As a matter of fact, the question as to whether an offence has been prima-facie committed or not is considered when an opinion is formed by the Court after applying mind on the material before it. That stage would come only at the time of framing of charge…..” 9. From above decision it is clear that merely on the ground of commission of subsequent offence after the grant of bail, the person who was admitted to bail, can suffer cancellation of bail only when the subsequent offence matures into framing of charge and not prior to that. 10. True it is that FIR under Crime No.942/2024 (Annexure P-2) has been registered against respondent No.2 by Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur under Section296, 308 (4) of of BNSS, 2023. However, in view of above decision in case of Mubin (supra), merely lodging of FIR is not a sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. 6 11. In the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to allow this application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 16.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.8617/2024. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI